Actually, I think that Captain America will be a sure-fire hit since it will play well with American audiences.

Click to expand...

Questionable; there's a heavy hurdle to overcome with him to show that he's not campy (like Superman, he's associated with the super-naive, goody-two-shoes school of superheroics). Even bigger in international markets, where movies tend to make at least half their money these days.

Click to expand...

It does seem as if Captain America has its work cut out for it; but if they go the World War 2 route (and from what I have heard, they are) then the camp factor can be lessened. After all, it can be made into a story about an elite soldier battling Nazis, which is something that can jive with audiences

Captain America is only a camp character if he's written that way. True, that tends to be the portrayal usually associated with the character, but one can look to the Ultimate line for an example of the perils that come with such naiveté and nationalist attachment. And while this film will, by all indications, take place mostly if not entirely in the WWII period, an Avengers movie can reduce or outright eliminate any camp factor with a more realistic, nuanced portrayal of a man experiencing the culture shock of seventy years' worth of social progress. (I'd love to see a scene such as this in an Avengers film: Cap challenges Fury about the ethics of some action saying it goes against his principles, or else questions whether the present [which would seem very loose and immoral from his perspective] is worth defending; Fury responds by telling him, in brief, about "Truth" and all the black men who were involuntarily experimented upon so that he could be created; the look on Steve Rogers' face as he is forced to confront the ugly side to his own idealistic existence).

Actually, I think that Captain America will be a sure-fire hit since it will play well with American audiences.

Click to expand...

Questionable; there's a heavy hurdle to overcome with him to show that he's not campy (like Superman, he's associated with the super-naive, goody-two-shoes school of superheroics). Even bigger in international markets, where movies tend to make at least half their money these days.

Click to expand...

It does seem as if Captain America has its work cut out for it; but if they go the World War 2 route (and from what I have heard, they are) then the camp factor can be lessened. After all, it can be made into a story about an elite soldier battling Nazis, which is something that can jive with audiences

Click to expand...

Yeah, I figure that the first movie as a shoot-nazis-up will do well. Something like Ultimates Vol 1 #1 is what I would have in mind. Lots of action and adventure without being campy.

Captain America is only a camp character if he's written that way. True, that tends to be the portrayal usually associated with the character, but one can look to the Ultimate line for an example of the perils that come with such naiveté and nationalist attachment. And while this film will, by all indications, take place mostly if not entirely in the WWII period, an Avengers movie can reduce or outright eliminate any camp factor with a more realistic, nuanced portrayal of a man experiencing the culture shock of seventy years' worth of social progress. (I'd love to see a scene such as this in an Avengers film: Cap challenges Fury about the ethics of some action saying it goes against his principles, or else questions whether the present [which would seem very loose and immoral from his perspective] is worth defending; Fury responds by telling him, in brief, about "Truth" and all the black men who were involuntarily experimented upon so that he could be created; the look on Steve Rogers' face as he is forced to confront the ugly side to his own idealistic existence).

Click to expand...

I think that's a totally wrongheaded way to approach the character.

Firstly, Truth (which, technically, did not lead to his creation; it was an attempt to duplicate the process he had already underwent), while it led to Patriot, who's a cool character, was a bad addition to the Cap mythos, and it's not one you'll likely see brought into a film universe.

More significantly, Steve Rogers is not naive. That kind of approach to the character completely ignores his background; he grew up in a single-parent household in the Bronx in the 1930s. He knows the reality of World War II American society, from the grinding poverty to the many disadvantaged groups (the guy's a bleeding-heart New Dealer, in his standard portrayal); he's idealistic in spite of all that, not because he's oblivious to it. He wants the future where a black man can be elected president.

^ Interesting article about Marvel's slate. If it's to be believed, Skaarsgard is in the running for Thor and his Dad might be Odin! Cool! And John Hartnett is up for Loki because Branagh liked his performance as Hugo/ Iago in 'O', the high school take on Othello. Makes sense, when you think about it.

-Avengers is delayed a year because of financing issues but also because the plan is for Favreau to helm it. Everybody here loves the guy and he wants to do it, but it would have been impossible for him to do before the date change given his Iron Man 2 commitments. Also partly the reason why he agreed to do the Stark sequel on such an accelerated schedule was so he could get given first dibs on this. It would still be a punishing schedule for him, so hes not firmly confirmed yet, but he is certainly the presumptive director at this point.- Iron Man starts rehearsals in a few days, which is why the casting is finally coming together so quickly.-Alexander Skargard is indeed Branagh’s favorite to play Thor as some sites are reporting. If all goes well and it happens then we hope to get Stellan Skarsgard for Odin (though at present Odin is only a very small cameo part in this movie).-Loki will probably be played by Hartnett, if his pay negotiations work out. All the commentary about him wanting to do a Ledger and play a villain is B.S. though – WE APPROACHED HARTNETT because Branagh’s a big fan of the Othello adaptation O where Hartnett played Iago who is very similar character wise to how he sees Loki.- Fox is serious about doing remakes of Daredvil and FF. They have to make new movies with these characters every few years because otherwise the options will revert to us. This point is kinda obvious but Im not sure people realise it –I havent seen anybody pointing it out anywhere. The mood around here is pretty negative about Rothman’s potential to execute these properties properly, (Im sure you know why it might be particularly negative at the moment) but we are all hoping his recent promotion will mean hes kept away from direct control of these movies.

Having announced these new target release dates just a few days ago, Marvel Studios has already, once again, changed the target release date for Thor. They now plan to release it on May 20, 2011 instead of June 17, 2011. So unless the date is changed again, that means it'll be released two weeks after Spider-Man 4.

Having announced these new target release dates just a few days ago, Marvel Studios has already, once again, changed the target release date for Thor. They now plan to release it on May 20, 2011 instead of June 17, 2011. So unless the date is changed again, that means it'll be released two weeks after Spider-Man 4.

Pushing The Avengers back to 2012 raises the possibility that Favreau could possibly direct it.

It's good that they're giving the films more time rather than rushing them, but they've now got a lot more risk concentrated in the summer of 2011 in terms of their self-financed films. Their previous plan for their self-financed slate had one surefire hit (Iron Man 2 and The Avengers respectively) and one potentially risky release (Thor and Captain America respectively) in the summers of 2010 and 2011. Now they have the two potentially risky releases together in the summer of 2011.

Click to expand...

It was reported in advanced iron.org website that Fav's will be directing Avengers after IM3 is post-production,and ready for release.

Pushing The Avengers back to 2012 raises the possibility that Favreau could possibly direct it.

It's good that they're giving the films more time rather than rushing them, but they've now got a lot more risk concentrated in the summer of 2011 in terms of their self-financed films. Their previous plan for their self-financed slate had one surefire hit (Iron Man 2 and The Avengers respectively) and one potentially risky release (Thor and Captain America respectively) in the summers of 2010 and 2011. Now they have the two potentially risky releases together in the summer of 2011.

Click to expand...

It was reported in advanced iron.org website that Fav's will be directing Avengers after IM3 is post-production,and ready for release.

Buck Rogers

Click to expand...

That's great to hear. The last thing I want is a hack director taking over the third Iron Man while Jon Favreau is distracted with something else.

It was reported in advanced iron.org website that Fav's will be directing Avengers after IM3 is post-production,and ready for release.

Click to expand...

There's speculation and rumors that he'll direct The Avengers, but nothing has been officially announced yet (although I think the speculation is very likely to turn out to be correct). But if he does direct it, it would be after Iron Man 2, not Iron Man 3.

It was reported in advanced iron.org website that Fav's will be directing Avengers after IM3 is post-production,and ready for release.

Click to expand...

There's speculation and rumors that he'll direct The Avengers, but nothing has been officially announced yet (although I think the speculation is very likely to turn out to be correct). But if he does direct it, it would be after Iron Man 2, not Iron Man 3.

Click to expand...

If they are serious about making The Avengers they have to delay Iron Man 3 then. They can't have Favreau making two films at the same time.